By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Stupid reasons to hate The Last of Us *Spoilers*

Tagged games:

KHlover said:
Oh, another one: Far too many conveniantly placed bricks. By the end of the game I'm pretty sure one would have been able to build a house out of them.


In surviver mode, there are no bricks. You have to craft your own bricks out of mud, dirt, and fire.

Around the Network
riderz13371 said:

If an infected human was running after you in real life you wouldn't just stop running cause you were tired lol...The adrenaline gives you a huge boost of energy.

It doesn't magically become adenosine triphosphate though. However, since I think stamina bars are annoying, I'm not going to complain about it.

OT - I posted in another thread why the prologue isn't shocking but rather dispensable by most literary standards and I was buried over a mountain of ad hominem, name calling and mere responses to tone that didn't do anything to address the arguments in question. But I'll bite that one, even after you appeal to ridicule and a bunch of other fallacies on the OP.

While not flaws per se, Naughty Dog uses some of the most common playability tropes found on action games with a bit of survival horror, such as endless waves of enemies, scarce placement of ammo and frequent checkpoints. It's a close kin to modern Resident Evil games in that aspect and basically a mix of the Tomb Raider reboot with Uncharted, alongside a Walking Dead storyline who was pretty good for a console game and managed to fit rather well with the gameplay.



 

 

 

 

 

riderz13371 said:
Jay520 said:
Sometimes the Ellis and the other friendly AI characters would go undetectable to the enemies. The game never explained how they got these powers.

I wish the multiplayer had more modes (Escort modes, steal the enemy's food, defend your own food, VIP, ect), and bigger maps. Less cover would by nice too, but I guess that's the norm for 3rd person shooters these days.

Developer decision. Read my comment on top of this one.



I know the reason for the decision. Doesn't mean it's not the most absurd component of the game.

riderz13371 said:
JayWood2010 said:
The game really is not perfect. One of my favorite games but it does have flaws including your partners are practically invisible to the enemies. There is also glitches in the game that will force you to restart to the last checkpoint and much of the story is predictable. The multiplayer is meh so im not going to talk about that but my point is it isnt perfect. Yes it is one of the best games I have played personally but it has flaws like any other game.

The reason your companions are invisibile to enemies is because when you are in stealth, Naughty Dog didn't want your AI companions to reveal your position. They made it so that if you are undetected by the enemy, your companion is also even if they are literally right in front of them or bump into them. It would be EXTREMELY annoying to have your position revealed even when it wasn't your fault. Also @bold, I never experienced this and I've played the game three times. I did have that glitch in the beginning where it didn't save though =/. Lost like 3 hours progress.


It takes you out of the immersion of the game.  I had my partners literally walk into enemies and they didn't care.  I had it glitch on me about 3 or 4 times on my first play through.  Once with me not being able to pick up a ladder and the other few times it wouldn't let me go through a door or something of that nature to move on through the game.

And yeah i would have been annoyed if i lost about 3 hours.  Good thing the gameplay is fun though so no worries XD One of the only games that I picked up again for a second playthough.

I think that no matter who you are the single-player will be at least a good game considering you enjoy single-player games.  I'd be shocked if someone could say it is bad.  My only point is it is not flawless by any means.  And for the multiplayer gamers that doesnt like single player (there is plenty of them) will not enjoy the game that much. While it is ok, it is not great either.




       

platformmaster918 said:
AndrewWK said:
Ohh fuck readin this OP pisses so much off. The game is not almost perfect. It has flaws, quite a few actually.

The gameplay is OK but nothing special, it suffers for occasional techinical issues because they where to ambotious and the PS3 couldn´t handle it all that well sometimes. And there where some other issues.

If you are a gamer who puts gameplay beyond everything else then you will not enjoy The Last of Us

I loved it because those things didn´t bother me all that much, and I fucking loved the characters.

what are you talking about?  It's made for gameplay people.  It shows that cinema doesn't have to be sacrificed for gameplay or vice versa.  Have you played on survivor?  It's so tense trying to remain undetected knowing that an enemy could walk in on you strangling his teammate and it's over.  You have to find supplies just to make a health pack which takes like 10 seconds to actually use, so basically you're screwed if you have to heal in the middle of battle.  Finally you're always running out of the good stuff so you're caught in a crazy situation with no ammo or molotovs or supplies to make stuff and you have to make it through 10 hunters with 2 9mm rounds.  This game IS survival.  I've never seen gameplay so perfectly compliment the theme of the story.  Every fight feels like a struggle and you know you have to conserve because you'll screw yourself over if you use more than 10 bullets in a fight or something.  I restarted after winning sometimes just cause I used too much.


Well I guess we´ll have to disagree. Btw. Your last sentence defy your whole argument of gameplay involving into the story



Around the Network
JayWood2010 said:

And for the multiplayer gamers that doesnt like single player (there is plenty of them) will not enjoy the game that much. While it is ok, it is not great either.


It depends on the type of multiplayer games they enjoy. If they are used to fast-paced twitch shooters, then they won't like this. But if they enjoy slower, thoughtful games with a heavy focus on teamwork & strategy over dexterity, then they will enjoy this.



Jay520 said:
JayWood2010 said:

And for the multiplayer gamers that doesnt like single player (there is plenty of them) will not enjoy the game that much. While it is ok, it is not great either.


It depends on the type of multiplayer games they enjoy. If they are used to fast-paced twitch shooters, then they won't like this. But if they enjoy slower, thoughtful games with a heavy focus on teamwork & strategy over dexterity, then they will enjoy this.


Disagree.  As a big multiplayer gamer myself the problems with The Last of Us in multiplayer does not surface from slow gameplay.  Especially when you can run straight through bullets for the broken melee system.  So no.  Gears of War is a much better approach to it.  You have the ability for different playstyles whether it be slow or fast.  Most of the problems with TloU comes from weak weapons, with a few OP including molothovs, shotty, smoke shiv combo, broken melee system, and armor that makes weapons even more useless.  The maps are also piss poor quality with very little strategic placements.  




       

bananaking21 said:
you cant jump on an emeny to kill them so the gameplay sucks


Moving from left to right and pressing a jump button is the pinnacle of good gameplay.



                                


Disagree.  As a big multiplayer gamer myself the problems with The Last of Us in multiplayer does not surface from slow gameplay.  Especially when you can run straight through bullets for the broken melee system.  So no.  Gears of War is a much better approach to it.  You have the ability for different playstyles whether it be slow or fast.  Most of the problems with TloU comes from weak weapons, with a few OP including molothovs, shotty, smoke shiv combo, broken melee system, and armor that makes weapons even more useless.  The maps are also piss poor quality with very little strategic placements.  

What I personally dislike in the Last of Us multi is the lack of variety in both weapons and map. There is also very little weapon customization. I think the only thing you can add is a silencer. I might do a Last of Us review for the unbiased reviews thing and I'm going to go into full detail for the multi player (and single player ofc). Just want to unlock everything in multi before doing so.



JayWood2010 said:


Disagree.  As a big multiplayer gamer myself the problems with The Last of Us in multiplayer does not surface from slow gameplay.  Especially when you can run straight through bullets for the broken melee system.  So no.  Gears of War is a much better approach to it.  You have the ability for different playstyles whether it be slow or fast.  Most of the problems with TloU comes from weak weapons, with a few OP including molothovs, shotty, smoke shiv combo, broken melee system, and armor that makes weapons even more useless.  The maps are also piss poor quality with very little strategic placements.  


Define "run through bullets". The only way you could run through bullets is if you are already close to someone and attack them before they could get over 2-3 shots off. Otherwise, you would be killed trying to rush someone.

It takes 2 shots from the arrow/rifle to down someone (one headshot). About 4-5 shots from the semi-auto rifle. And about 2 bursts (I think) from that short-range burst weapon (forgot what it's called. No one uses it). That does not seem weak to me. 

What's broken about the melee?

I agree that the armor should be removed, but that's my only problem from a gameplay standpoint.